You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
13 points

Sadly not. There are unproven ones which might be, but the US nuclear industry has a substantial history of coming in really really expensive.

The reason electricity in most places is cheaper are:

  • Nuclear was built a long time ago, so the reactors are paid for already
  • Electricity is generated using methods other than nuclear
permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*

The US Navy has had functional Small modular reactor designs mostly PWR designs since the 1960s in the 5mw to 500mw range with no major failures yet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

That’s thanks to the training (started with Rickover) and discipline and no shareholders. Commercial nukes don’t measure up, e.g. when it comes to leakages and knowing what to do in case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Now you’re just being disingenuous. I am certain that qualified individuals from the private sector and qualified individuals from the military both receive adequate training to operate their facilities

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Yes. Operated on a military budget. There’s a reason they’re not used for civilian use.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

Citation please

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

The problem is that none of these designs have ever been used to power the grid. Every nuclear project in the recent past has blown by cost and time estimates. Wind and solar are not only cheaper than nukes, they can also be installed much quicker and predictably. Nukes have a place, but we need clean energy now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Wind and solar are great, but they cannot provide consistent 24 hours base load production. Even with massive battery farms, they cannot replace bas load consistently.

That’s where nuclear needs to be, replacing the base load production currently being handled via coal and natural gas.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

It’s also for reasons with nothing to do with nuclear in particular. The US is just terrible at executing large civil projects. It costs more to build at large scales here than virtually anywhere else, for a confluence of reasons – highly decentralized project management (state, county, federal, city governments all fighting for authority), lack of sustainable learning curves, NEPA being weaponized by NIMBYs to kill every project including environmentalist ones, plain dumb politics… you know you have a problem when you look onto the efficiency of Italian bureaucracy with envy, but meanwhile they can build e.g., rail projects at something like a third to sixth the budget the US can.

A big part of the problem is that we insist on fully custom and experimental projects. Every fucking time. We never just use the catalog builds. We never set and stick to a standard. Not even in road design, where the AASHTO green book is treated like a fucking Holy Bible – we follow its (largely dumb and dangerous requirements while still bespoking every fucking project.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.8K

    Posts

  • 31K

    Comments

Community moderators